Did The DA Just Offer To Throw SA's Poor Under The Bus? (And Other Questions)

"The ANC-DA led Government of National Unity is on a collision course that threatens to tear apart the less than one year old formation as the April 1 deadline to reach an agreement on the 0.5 percentage point VAT increase fast approaches." - IOL news article March 28, 2025.

Here the Democratic Alliance demonstrates their willingness to throw the poor under the bus by putting the VAT increase on the table to protect themselves and their wealthy backers interests. This speaks to their attitude about the poor, doesn't it? 

I mean, the poor don't matter, right? It doesn't matter if they struggle, does it? The billionaires who keep their pockets full are more important - and so on. I remember something about a French queen saying something like "let them (the poor) eat cake", and it not ending too well for her - but I digress.

Politics is a big business. And those who work in it the longest, gain the most wealth. After all, power and wealth go hand in hand. That's why power, more often than not, attracts powerful greed.

This is typical of the DA to throw poor South Africans under the bus to favor the interests of the uber-wealthy. I repeat: typical. They are the gentrification party of SA, after all.

But don't just take my word for it - let's dig a little deeper:

The DA is a white millionaire's club - and it's not just me saying that, that's their main support group, after all. Sure there are a lot of poor old aunties and uncles and even some enthusiastic young people donating a R100 here and R200 there (I used to be one of them long ago, but that's another story) - but it's all chump change in comparison to what the big donors - the WEALTHY - give them - and that's where they get the bulk of their funding from, so they know which side their bread is buttered. 

In the context of the 1% VAT increase over the next 2 years (half now, half later, like some obscene parody of a death sentence executed by installments) - and the land expropriation law most right wingers (and billionaires) have their knickers in knots about - the DA also knows that the government won't bother with expropriating gramma and granpa's little one room flat, or a little 3 bedroom house that belongs to the average South Africa - they'd be focusing on business properties like abandoned buildings decaying in city centers and vacant or underutilized industrial land - which ALL belong to the wealthy class - to clarify, to THEIR MAIN SUPPORTERS AND BACKERS. 

Who Are The DA's Wealthy Backers?

The main financial backers of the Democratic Alliance (DA) include:

Michiel le Roux and Fynbos Entities: Michiel le Roux, the founder of Capitec Bank, is the DA's largest funder. He donated over R50 million through his private companies, Fynbos Ekwiteit, Fynbos Kapitaal, and Fynbos Trust. 1, 2

Martin Moshal: An Israeli-South African billionaire businessman and owner of Betway, Moshal is the second-largest funder to the DA. He has donated significant amounts to the party, totaling R30 million in recent years. Moshal has only donated to the DA and ActionSA, totaling R44.5 million. (Does eagerness to appease this backer perhaps explain, to some extent, the DA's efforts to oppose South Africa's actions that led to the ICJ prosecuting Israel for crimes against humanity?) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

The Oppenheimer Family: This billionaire (in USD) family has also been a significant donor to the DA, contributing R17.5 million. This is the famous mining family that fronted the colonialist era mining trend of the 19th and 20th centuries, through a mulitnational mining conglomerate called De Beers. The family's wealth and business empire were built during the apartheid era, and they were among the most powerful capitalist families in the country. The Oppenheimer family remains influential in South Africa, although their direct involvement in mining has diminished since they sold their stake in De Beers to Anglo American in 2012. 9, 10, 11, 12

Friedrich Naumann Foundation: This German-based foundation has provided substantial support to the DA, both financially and through training programs. 13

Gap Infrastructure Corporation: In addition to contributing notable amounts to the DA, GIC has also donated money to the African Transformation Movement (ATM), to the tune of R10 million, as reported in the Electoral Commission's disclosures. 14, 14b  

Why is this relevant? Isn't this article about the DA? Well yes, but it's also about the DA's donors - and here we see something puzzling in the form of a donor to the DA seeming to financially support a political party supposedly opposed to what the DA allegedly stands for. Let's take a closer, brief, look at the ATM.

A short overview of who the ATM is in contrast to the DA: The African Transformation Movement (ATM) is a political party in South Africa, founded in 2018 with the backing of the South African Council of Messianic Churches in Christ (SACMCC). It is led by Vuyolwethu Zungula, who serves as the party's president. The ATM is positioned as a centre-right party with an ideology that includes conservatism, Christian democracy, and right-wing populism. It also holds anti-immigration views, advocates for the reintroduction of the death penalty, and opposed mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. After the 2024 elections, the ATM joined the Progressive Caucus, a left-wing parliamentary faction that includes the Economic Freedom Fighters and uMkhonto weSizwe parties. Its manifesto emphasizes servant leadership, African-based transformation (Ubuntu), accountability, new energy, and fresh ideas and aims to build corrupt-free, accountable, and capable municipalities and enhance local economic development.

Overall, the ATM presents itself as a "faith-based" (i.e. religious fanatic) party focused on transforming South African society (into a "Christian democracy") through a mix of conservative and populist policies. 14b, 14c, 14d, 14e

Perhaps this seems like a bit of a side-quest, but I find it somewhat puzzling (and concerning) that a donor would sponsor two seemingly diametrically opposed political parties with diametrically opposed, clashing ideologies and views. Is this perhaps a case of an investor hedging his bets? 

The DA historically has been a vocal supporter of secularism within the South African political environment - which the ATM clearly opposes, among other things listed, as a party with its feet firmly planted in the mire of religious zealotry and even extremism - and make no mistake, that is "conservatism" in a nutshell. Also, the rise in support for populism (Donald Trump and the Republican Party's most influential tool) is of deeply troubling concern. 

That said, at the end of the day, this is a very interesting list of people and entities pouring money into our political machine - and even pulling the puppet strings when it suits them, don't you think?

While fearmongering of threats to land ownership is largely unsubstantiated, hypothetical and also based in hysterical propaganda launched by entities who either a) haven't read and understood the Land Expropriation law - or b) have something to gain from perpetuating this misunderstanding of it (see my earlier article on that topic), this intertwined fear or motive might well be a cocktail poured to propel the DA's actions to protect the interests of its wealthiest backers over the interests of the general population (who are in far more dire need of protection from exploitation than a clusterfuck of entitled billionaire parasites - and more from the latter than anything else). 

WHO Stands To Lose Most Among The DA's Backers?

Among the donors listed, Michiel le Roux and the Oppenheimer family might stand to lose substantial property or land ownership under South Africa's new land expropriation bill. Here's why:

Michiel le Roux: As one of South Africa's largest private property owners, Michiel le Roux's extensive land holdings could be impacted by the new expropriation law. His properties might be subject to expropriation if they are deemed unused or if they benefit significantly from state investment without private development. 15, 16

Oppenheimer Family: The Oppenheimers own significant tracts of land, including the Shangani Ranch and Tswalu Kalahari game reserve. While these properties are actively used for conservation and agriculture, any speculative or unused portions could potentially be targeted under the new law, especially if they are seen as benefiting from state investment. 17, 18, 19, 20

(Martin Moshal and other donors like Gap Infrastructure Corporation are said to be less likely to be directly affected by land expropriation, as their primary interests are in other sectors such as technology, consumer goods distribution, and infrastructure development, and not property itself - but who really knows?)

The Leadership Of The DA

So, after all this, why the disconnect and lack of interest in the welfare of the poor?

Let's take a look at the top DA leadership structure and see why:

The current leader of the DA, John Steenhuisen, is reported to have a net worth of approximately R36 million (around $2 million USD) according to some sources, though this figure may not be entirely accurate or up-to-date. Generally, political leaders in South Africa earn salaries ranging from R1.5 million to R4.2 million annually, depending on their roles. However, their net worth often includes additional assets such as properties, investments, and inheritances, which are not publicly disclosed. His salary as Minister of Agriculture in the current GNU (Government of National Unity) is about R2.7 million annually. This, again, doesen't include any other income (i.e. salary from the DA itself, investments, properties, etc.) 21

The income and assets of other senior DA leadership figures - for example Helen Zille, Dr. Ivan Meyer etc. - people who made careers in politics and who have unquestionably profited financially from their roles over long periods of time - are essentially invisible to the public. 

This is unacceptable in a democracy such as ours, and as far I'm concerned, this sort of information should be public knowledge - not just for the sake of combatting corruption, but also for the sake of transparency. The people should be able to see just who they're voting for, and what sort of hands they're placing their interests, wellbeing and lives in. Does this person have some sort of human connection with me and my wellbeing? Or are they just people who will do or say anything it takes to do laps in Scrooge Mc Duck's money pool?

Instead, we live in a culture where the focus falls on low-tier government employees, most of whom struggle to keep roofs over their heads, put their kids to school and put food on their tables, to please explain where they got the money to afford a new car - rather than putting the focus onto high-level politicians to ask them where they got the money to buy a private jet or fourth luxury holiday home - or a "fire pool". But once again, I digress.

Here we come to the final implications of this article.

What Does This Mean?

Politicians tend to pander to the whims of their financial backers. We see examples of this in the "big brother" show of democracy in the USA every day (as well as the chilling current example of where that ultimately leads) - where donors to a politician's campaign often call favors later, with the politician dancing along to their tune.

Could this trend have manifested here in this case - not just in terms of how the DA reacted to the land expropriation issue - or versus the VAT increase, but also in terms of how the DA actively opposed South Africa's stance on Israel's genocide in Gaza? Well, I might not have any proof to nail down a definitive "yes!", but I certainly think so. 

Why would we expect John Steenhuisen, a millionaire - supported by more millionaires, and funded by BILLIONaires - to give a rat's arse about the suffering of the poor who will drown under the effects of yet another 1% VAT increase - even the poor who deludedly continue to believe that he and the DA have their backs?

This is what I mean by a "disconnect" between the wealthy and everyone else in this country. The rich are insulated from the effects of this VAT increase by their wealth. They won't feel the impact as much as a poor family scraping money together to survive the whole month between paydays in a climate where essentials like food, housing and transport increase on a monthly and even weekly basis while their salaries stay stagnant, and even lose buying power during a single year. The rich aren't personally affected by these increments the poor find devastating, so therefore, they couldn't care less. As far as they're concerned, the poor can just tighten their belts a little more - so what?

Wealth is the golden crucible where empathy goes to die.

This latest move by the DA is a glaring betrayal of the trust voters place in politicians - but sadly, it's far from unique, nor an isolated incident. But it is validation of the age-old truth that the rich don't care about the poor - except when it comes to voting time of course. And then, I suspect, they will trot out some flashing lights and oompa bands and other distractions for when they are confronted with this betrayal of this country's poor, to minimize it, and gaslight us into believing it either never happened, or if it did, we simply misunderstood how it all went down.

Good luck with that one, DA.

Meanwhile, this should be a glaring, bone-jarring wake-up call for that portion of the poor masses in this country who still blindly vote for the gentrification party - if they continue to do so, they will only vote themselves deeper into poverty and starvation.